[License-discuss] Proposed license decision process
luis at lu.is
Sun Dec 9 23:42:08 UTC 2018
(1) what is the proposed test for "guarantees software freedom"?
(2) if the answer to #1 is something like "the same tests as the FSF would
apply" (either explicitly or implicitly), does the board plan to talk with
FSF about merging license lists and review processes? If not, why not?
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:38 PM Richard Fontana <
richard.fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
> At a recent meeting, the OSI Board discussed requests to clarify the
> license approval process (documented at
> https://opensource.org/approval). We've drafted the guidelines below,
> which we aim to follow when reviewing licenses, to ensure that a
> license will be approved only if it conforms to the Open Source
> Definition and provides software freedom.
> "Decision Date" for a license normally means (a) 60 days after a
> license is initially submitted for review, and (b) 30 days after
> submission of a revised version of a license that was previously
> submitted for review. A license is considered to be submitted for
> review if it follows the process set forth at
> https://opensource.org/approval. While we will try our best to adhere
> strictly to this 60/30 day Decision Date definition, circumstances may
> require us to extend the Decision Date further.
> On the Decision Date, the OSI will announce one of four possible decisions:
> 1. Defer for another 30-day discussion cycle, if community discussion
> of conformance of the license to the OSD remains active
> 2. Approve, if (a) there is sufficient consensus emerging from
> community discussion that approval is justified, and (b) the OSI
> determines that the license conforms to the Open Source Definition and
> guarantees software freedom
> 3. Reject if (a) the OSI determines that the license cannot
> practically be remedied to adequately guarantee software freedom, or
> (b) there is sufficient consensus emerging from community discussion
> that the license should be rejected for substantive reasons, or (c)
> the license is problematic for nonsubstantive reasons (for example, it
> is poorly drafted or significantly duplicative of one or more existing
> OSI-approved licenses)
> 4. Withhold approval, if (a) the OSI determines that approval would
> require reworking the license and (b) the license submitter appears
> willing and able to revise the license constructively
> We would appreciate your comments.
> - Richard
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss